Until his death in Tegucigalpa on May 31, 1990, FRANCISCO JAVIER BONILLA
had been an active member in the Honduran Social Security Institute Union
(SITRAIHSS), and at various times had been an officer in the union. Because
of his activism in the union movement, he had been the target of two failed
two kidnapping attempts. At the time, the victim blamed possible members
of Battalion 316 or some other State security force, as he stated in his
oral testimony. Prior to his death, he was being nominated for the office
of president of the Union, against the will and political interests of
the executives of the IHSS (Honduran Social Security Institute).

2. CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS DEATH:

On Thursday, May 31, 1990, the victim participated in a meeting where
various SITRAIHSS-related matters were discussed. Also present were Ramón
Rosa Cabrera and Francisca Consuelo Valladares de Castellanos. It was raining
when the meeting ended, and those attending left the home of Ramón
Rosa Cabrera, in the neighborhood called El Chile de Tegucigalpa, and headed
in the direction of the bridge that connects that neighborhood with the
city. The victim was walking alongside Mrs. Francisca Consuelo Valladares
de Castellanos. When they reached the end of the bridge, an armed man fired
on him, killing him instantly. The individual beside him was able to see
the face of the murderer, in spite of the rain and the fading light at
that time, which was between 6:00 and 7:00. Another union member, Ramón
Rosa Cabrera, was a few steps behind the victim.

3. THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE

As a result of that murder, the Public Relations Office of the Honduran
Armed Forces published a communique dated June 1, 1990, announcing that
the Armed Forces had ordered "an exhaustive investigation, which will
continue until the killer is identified. A special committee has been formed
for that purpose." It was later learned that the committee was composed
of five colonels. Their final report showed that there were three suspected
assassins, allegedly acting on orders from and in the pay of a medical
student and university leader, Martín Pineda. The first three suspects,
when they were brought before the competent judge, stated that they had
confessed under torture, in the cells of the National Investigations Department
(DNI). When brought face to face with the alleged intellectual author of
the crime, the three denied ever having seen him until that moment. The
two witnesses mentioned earlier stated, in the presence of the competent
judge, that the accused did not fit the physical description they had given
of the murderer.

4. EVIDENCE OF THE STATE'S CULPABILITY:

On Wednesday, October 17, 1990, the witness Francisca Consuelo Valladares
de Castellanos recognized the murderer when his photograph was published
on the front page of the newspaper "La Tribuna." He was identified
as an agent of the National Investigations Department (DNI), Felipe Santiago
Aguilar Martínez, also known as Felipe Martínez (alias "Popeye"),
according to notarized testimony No. 30, signed by the witness and delivered
in the presence of the attorney Linda Lizzie Rivera on December 17, 1990
(document attached).

5. PETITION

I ask that the Honorable Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accept
this petition as a case of a violation of Article 4, the right to life,
and, in exercise of its functions, that it act in accordance with Article
41.f on the matter of its competence.

On February 27, 1991, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of
the denunciation to the Government of Honduras, requesting information
within 90 days. When no reply to that request was received, the request
was sent again on June 6, 1991. The Government was advised that if no reply
was forthcoming within 30 days, the Commission would consider eventual
application of Article 42 of its Regulations.

2. ADDITIONS TO THE PETITION AND REQUEST FOR PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES

On June 10, 1991, additional information on the case was received, which
included a request for precautionary measures to protect the life and physical
safety of Luis Andrés Galeas García. The Commission transmitted
that new information to the Government on June 19, 1991, requesting a reply
within 30 days; in exercise of its authority under Article 29.2 of its
Regulation, the Commission asked the Government to take the requested precautionary
measures.

The additional information received on June 19, 1991, is as follows:

One year after the murder of union leader FRANCISCO JAVIER BONILLA MEDINA,
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is again being requested
to investigate this crime.

The Commission is also informed that the Special Committee that the
Armed Forces of Honduras established with colonels Lázaro Avila
Soleno, Herbert Munguia, Oscar Flores, Juan Ramón Alvarado and Fredy
Miranda, and Major Luis Alonso Cordón, submitted a report so unconvincing
that those alleged responsible, Amador Zúñiga and Luis Andrés
Galeas García, who were reported to be the material authors of the
crime, were released provisionally, when the judge who was hearing the
case ruled that there was insufficient merit to hold them in custody. The
student Martín Pineda, whom the military had claimed was the intellectual
author, is also still at liberty. The same is also true of Marco Tulio
Mencía García who, according to the military report, served
as an intermediary between the alleged material authors and the intellectual
author of the crime.

As it happens, the Special Committee, which consists exclusively of
military officers, did not name the real guilty parties. Attached is testimony
from an eyewitness to the murder, who states that it was an agent from
the National Investigations Bureau who committed the crime. This individual
has not been called before the courts by his superiors to be investigated
as the law requires. We are therefore urging the Commission to reveal the
identity of the alleged assassin to the Government of Honduras.

It is clear that when they submitted their report on July 26, 1990,
the officers serving on the Special Committee incriminated innocent people
and are, it would seem, guilty of a cover-up (Article 388 of the Penal
Code) and of making a false accusation or denunciation (Article 387).

Luis Andrés Galeas García was brutally tortured to force
him to confess to being one of the material authors. When he was released,
he testified to these facts. We are attaching a copy of this document to
this note. Mr. Galeas is also being persecuted by agents of the DNI, for
the obvious purpose of silencing him or eliminating him. We are therefore
requesting that precautionary measures be taken to protect his safety.

3. THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE

On July 8, 1992, the Government of Honduras sent its reply to the denunciation.
That reply included Memorandum 051-CIDH from the Interinstitutional Human
Rights Commission (a governmental body). The pertinent parts of that reply
read as follows:

In connection with this case, the First Criminal Court of the Department
of Francisco Morazán is hearing the case in question; at present,
pre-trial steps are in progress; the inquiries that the law requires are
being conducted which may turn up evidence to shed light on the facts.

As for the evidence of the guilt of the Honduran State that the petition
alleges, I should inform you that efforts have been made to speak with
Mrs. FRANCISCA CONSUELO VALLADARES MONTOYA DE CASTELLANOS, both at her
work place (Honduran Social Security Institute) and at her home (Villa
Adela neighborhood, Sixth Avenue, 22nd and 23rd Streets, Comayaguela, D.C.).
Thus far, she has been impossible to locate. However, we have information
from other persons to the effect that the individual in question left the
country; however, she stated the following when she testified before the
Court on June 5, 1990:

QUESTION: Can you identify the individual who fired the shots?
ANSWER: No, I can't because I wear glasses. It was raining at the
time and I didn't have them on. Moreover, because of the time and the place,
I was unable to identify the person...

In her expanded testimony on June 18, 1990, the same individual stated
the following: QUESTION: Did the individual get out of an automobile?
ANSWER: I never saw the face; it was very dark.

This is evident from the photocopies of the affidavits attached hereto.

The Government's reply also contained a copy of an affidavit from the
First Criminal Court of the Department of Francisco Morazán attesting
to the testimony that Mrs. Francisca Consuelo Valladares Montoya gave under
oath on June 5, 1990 in connection with this case.

4. THE PETITIONER'S REPLY

The petitioner, who was sent the above information on July 9, 1991,
replied on August 8, with the assertions summarized below. Those assertions
were forwarded to the Government on August 12, 1991, requesting a reply
within 30 days.

The petitioner's reply relates a number of procedural flaws and cover-ups
on the part of the Government:

a) In Honduras summary proceedings are public, except in those cases
where confidentiality is necessary to preserve the interests of justice.
However, the courts refuse to provide certified records of court proceedings
to interested parties and there are even judges who allege confidentiality
so as not to let nonlitigant interested professionals read the proceedings;

b) During the pre-trial period, no suspect can be held for more than
a month. With reasonable cause, that period can be extended to three months,
if information from outside the country is required;

c) The Government is not revealing the false charges being brought against
innocent parties in this case and the cover up of the one directly responsible
and of the intellectual authors. This is even more serious in the case
of grievous crimes such as this one, where inquiries are automatic;

d) One of the measures to be taken, under Article 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, is the police report or the report by a public security
force. The special (military) committee's report of July 26, 1990, is the
only such report in the case file;

e) The witnesses to the killing of BONILLA were not brought face to
face with the alleged assassins; from the photographs published in the
newspaper, they said that none of the accused was the actual author.

The petitioner's response to what the Government said concerning the
statements made by the witness Francisca Consuelo Valladares before the
First Criminal Judge of Morazán, was that at the time of her testimony
the witness was experiencing the psychological stress of having witnessed
the death of her friend and union colleague and of having been on the verge
of becoming another victim in the murder. That stress is obvious from the
psychological treatment that the witness had to undergo at the Honduran
Social Security Institute, both because of her emotional imbalance and
to relieve her indescribable fear that someone would discover that she
recalled the face of the murderer perfectly, because he was very close
to her when he pointed the weapon at her. She survived because of a miracle,
which was that the murder's weapon was out of bullets. This is all clear
in the first sworn statement made by the witness in which she says that
she would hold authorities of the State responsible for any attack against
her or her family. In the days that followed, she was under surveillance,
which made all the members of her family nervous.

Her suffering increased when it was said that this was a crime of passion,
because of alleged relations with Mr. BONILLA, which her husband dismissed.

In her statement before the court, the principal witness described the
murderer of Mr. BONILLA as follows: "a short man, slender, with short
hair; I couldn't say whether it was straight or curly. He was wearing khaki
pants and a beige sweater." The witness was willing to take a lie
detector test for the Commission.

For the sake of her own safety, the witness had to seek political refuge
and now lives in Canada. However, the Government made it difficult for
her to leave Honduras, and put her name on the "Red Alert" list
of the General Bureau of Population and Migration Policy, which made her
look as if she were a suspect in the murder. When they were not able to
keep her there, her passport and the passport of her two daughters were
revoked.

Finally, the petitioner alleges that systematic human rights violations
persist in Honduras and that there is no means of obtaining effective internal
guarantees in the country.

The petitioner also appeared in a hearing before the Commission at its
meeting on February 1, 1992. There, the petitioner reported that two of
the witnesses in the case had to leave Honduras to protect their lives
and safety, after testifying to the events that had transpired. In late
July 1991, the National Congress of the Republic had decreed a general
amnesty that would cover those State agents who allegedly were responsible
for the murder of FRANCISCO JAVIER BONILLA MEDINA.

5. THE GOVERNMENT'S SECOND REPLY

In a note dated February 19, 1992, the Government replied by sending
a statement from the Director General of Population and Migration Policy
to the effect that Mrs. Francisca Consuelo Valladares had and still has
complete freedom to enter and leave the country and that no impediment
of any kind stood in the way of her leaving the country.

The Government's reply also included memorandum 2/CIDH/92 from the Interinstitutional
Human Rights Commission, describing the petitioner's observations as "subjective,
bordering on slander." The Government noted that the proceedings instituted
as a result of the death of Mr. BONILLA were being conducted in accordance
with the law but that it was difficult for the Court to compile the information
necessary to complete the case; it said that no reasonable evidence had
as yet been found concerning the authorship of the crime.

The Government stated that when witness Valladares was brought face
to face with a suspect being held, it was established that the suspect
in question had not taken part in the crime and he was released. The Government
alleged that there was no case file wherein false accusations were made
against innocent parties and that there were no secret files. The Government
also included the request for procedural certifications.

It further stated that

It is absolutely false that the General Bureau of Population and Migration
Policy created some impediment to prevent Mrs. Consuelo Valladares from
leaving the country. It is a matter of public record that she has left
the country, and the document attesting to that fact is attached hereto.

The Government stated that it had no knowledge of any police surveillance
of the principal witness and did not believe that the police had taken
any such action; the Government said that the witness could make an appearance
in court and amend her testimony. It stated that witnesses Carlos Alberto
Cerrato Padilla, Wilfredo Yolando Silvestrucci Santos, Francisca Consuelo
Valladares and Ramón Rosa Cabrera Girón had been brought
face to face.

The Government concluded with some positive comments concerning the
Government's conduct where human rights were concerned.

6. That information was sent to the petitioner on February 25, 1992,
requesting observations as soon as possible. The Commission received the
petitioner's observations on June 1, 1992, which reasserted statements
made earlier by the petitioner.

At its 82 session, the Commission adopted Report No. 25/92, which was
referred to the Government of Honduras so that the latter might make whatever
observations it deemed pertinent within three months of the date of transmission.

ANALYSIS:

7. The Commission has competence to hear the instant case because it
involves facts that, if true, constitute violations of rights recognized
by the American Convention on Human Rights; the petition satisfies the
formal requirements for admissibility and there is no allegation that this
same case is pending settlement in another international forum or that
it is a duplication of a case already examined by the Commission.

The note that the Government sent on February 8, 1992, makes it very
clear that there is no judicial inquiry into the facts in this petition.

8. The Commission therefore resolves to admit the present case, inasmuch
as it fulfills the requirements stipulated in Article 46 of the Convention
and since none of the grounds for inadmissibility stipulated in Article
47 of the Convention applies to it.

Because of the nature of the facts denounced, the friendly settlement
procedure provided in Article 48.1.f of the American Convention on Human
Rights does not apply, so that the Commission must carry out the provisions
of Article 50.1 of the Convention, issuing its conclusions and recommendations
on the petition submitted to it for consideration.

As to the pre-trial procedures

9. From the information the Commission has in its possession, it is
evident that even though the principal witness reported having recognized
the material author of the crime in a newspaper photograph of someone known
as "Popeye", who was then an agent of the National Bureau of
Investigations and whose photograph had appeared in the newspaper because
of an attempted kidnapping in which he was the co-author, that agent was
never interrogated nor brought face to face with the eyewitnesses to the
murder of Bonilla and the attack on his companions.

10. Said DNI agent, "Popeye", had stated -according to statements
made to journalists--that his role in the attempted kidnapping of another
DNI agent who was in the custody of the court, was done in the official
line of duty; this was confirmed by one of his superiors, Captain Cesar
Augusto Somoza, in statements made to the press to the effect that this
was "excessive zeal in the line of duty." (La Prensa,
October 17, 1990).

11. The attempt to wrest the DNI agent from the custody of the court
was a public incident witnessed by judges and journalists alike; its purpose
was to extract José Manuel Guzmán Martinez from court custody,
as he was being indicted as the brains behind the kidnapping of another
union leader by the name of Briceño.

12. This same Popeye, in those statements on the kidnapping attempt,
told journalists: "We didn't think that this problem would come up
here. We were performing an official mission. I cannot say on whose orders.
This is part of the job." (La Prensa, October 17, 1990).

14. While what the Interinstitutional Commission says is true, i.e.,
the principal witness, Consuelo Valladares in her sworn testimony (June
5 and 18, 1990) alluded to problems of visibility in terms of identifying
or recognizing the murderer at the time the crime occurred, a careful
reading of the statements she made shows that she never said that she did
not see all of the perpetrator or she did not see him close up; she said
quite the opposite:

...and it was then, when they began to fire on them from behind; the
two of them immediately spun around, and Mr. Francisco Bonilla shoved her
(the deponent) with his right hand; she saw a bullet hit, which she believed
was intended for her; when Francisco (Bonilla) shoved her, two or three
shots had already been fired; she was not sure how many; she saw Mr. Francisco
try to run; he took three steps to the right, looking for the corner...;
when Francisco fell to the ground, the assailant went up to him and fired
two more times; at that point, Francisco was lying face down; the assailant
immediately turned around and, facing the deponent, pointed the gun at
her for a moment; she doesn't know whether the assailant fired or whether
he had no bullets in the pistol,... (emphasis added)

15. The principal witness later stated that she was terrified when she
testified and that in a subsequent psychiatric examination, it was found
that her fear prevented her from revealing that she recalled the assassin's
face perfectly.

16. The lack of judicial inquiries to interrogate and establish the
responsibility of "Popeye," despite the public statements, shows
that the judicial system has little interest in prosecuting investigations.

17. The judiciary's disinterest occurs at a time when, in the space
of only a few months, a number of union and university leaders who opposed
the Government were murdered in the country, though none of the murders
has ever been solved. (Case Salomón Vallecillo in San Pedro
Sula, shortly after the Honduran Tobacco Workers Union that he led triumphed
in the negotiation of a collective contract in mid-1989; Edgardo Herrera,
a leader of the University Reform Front, also in San Pedro Sula, in July
1989; Cristóbal Pérez Alfaro, in San Pedro Sula at
around the same time; Reinaldo Zúñiga and Hernán
Rodríguez García, peasant leaders murdered on January
25 and April 26, 1990; the bomb thrown at the leader of the electrical
workers union, Gladys Lanza, at around the same time, and the death
of the transportation leader Briceño, in which the DNI agent
Guzmán Martínez was tried and whom other DNI agents tried
to extricate from the custody of the court).

As to the investigation conducted by the Armed Forces Committee

The Commission considers that:

18. The fact that the Government, through the Armed Forces, which oversees
the Bureau of Investigations and the Police, announced and created a special,
high-level committee to conduct the investigation is indicative of the
importance that Mr. Bonilla's murder and the attack on his union colleagues
had in the eyes of the public.

19. The committee's findings were clearly inconclusive, as evidenced
by the fact that the judge had to order the release of those whom the military
committee had named as suspects; for their part, the former suspects accused
the committee and their abductors of having tortured them to force them
to confess.

20. There is no evidence in the Government's reply that the appropriate
independent investigations were ordered into the complaints of torture
and illegal duress of those falsely accused.

21. Another contradiction in the military version is the fact that the
alleged intellectual authors, two university leaders, were fugitives; newspaper
accounts indicate that journalists visited at least one of them. The so-called
fugitive was at home, going about his business; he said that he would go
to the Court immediately since this was the first he had learned of the
matter.

As to the alleged persecution of the principal witness

22. As Mrs. Consuelo de Valladares contends, from the time of the crime,
when the author approached her, pointed the gun at her and actually fired
at her, without success, a particular form of persecution began involving
threats and surveillance.

23. As part of that persecution, efforts were made to try to prevent
her from leaving the country, on orders from the Bureau of Population and
Migration.

In a note to this Commission dated February 8, 1992, the Government's
Interinstitutional Commission denied that any such order ever existed.

24. However, the Commission has in its possession an official telegram
dated 12-27-90, a copy of which was duly transmitted to the Government,
wherein the Director of Population and Migration, Col. Bustillo Murcia,
stated: "Kindly nullify the Stop-Exit Alert for VALLADARES MONTOYA,
FRANCISCA CONSUELO, dated 6-11-90, a HONDURAN national."

25. That order was issued after the principal witness denounced the
impediment to the Minister of the Interior, presenting legal records to
the effect that there was no charge against her and she was not being sought.
The Minister gave the order on December 19, 1990.

26. The fact that there was such an order to obstruct the principal
witness' departure, as shown above, and the Government's conduct in sending
an official note to the Commission denying any impediment, lends credence
to the charge that the Government was indeed persecuting the principal
witness.

27. That the Government of Honduras has not presented its observations
on Report No. 25/92.

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

CONCLUDES:

1. To declare that the Government of Honduras is responsible for violation
of the right to judicial protection, Article 25 of the American Convention
on Human Rights in relation to Articles 1.1, 2 and 8 concerning the obligation
to respect and ensure the rights recognized therein, in the case of FRANCISCO
JAVIER BONILLA MEDINA, a union leader killed in Tegucigalpa on May 31,
1990.

2. To recommend to the Government of Honduras that:

a. it establish the conditions necessary to conduct a thorough judicial
investigation of the facts and to punish those responsible.

b. it take legislative and all other measures necessary to ensure, henceforth,
the rights that, in the Commission's judgment, have been violated in this
case and to prevent a recurrence of such violations.

c. it make reparations for the consequences of the violation of the
aforementioned rights and pay fair compensation to the injured parties.

d. it develop a witness protection program for this case and cases like
it.

3. To publish this report in the Annual Report to the General Assembly,
pursuant to Article 48 of the Commission's Regulations and Article 53.1
of the Convention, inasmuch as the Government of Honduras did not did not
adopt measures to correct the situation denounced, within the time period
stipulated in Report No. 25/92.

(*) Commission member Dr. Leo Valladares Lanza abstained
from participating in the consideration and voting on both reports.